Collective bargaining limitations lead to school improvements in one Wisconsin district

posted at 6:33 pm on July 5, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Remember when Democratic senators in the Wisconsin state legislature said Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to limit collective bargaining for public teachers’ unions would be detrimental for students? When union protesters — among other cruder criticisms — enjoined politicians to “care about educators like they care about your child”? Looks like the law that caused such bitter controversy in the Badger State will benefit both students and teachers in at least one Wisconsin district. The Washington Examiner’s Byron York reports:

The Kaukauna School District, in the Fox River Valley of Wisconsin near Appleton, has about 4,200 students and about 400 employees. It has struggled in recent times and this year faced a deficit of $400,000. But after the law went into effect, at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it’s all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.

In the past, teachers and other staff at Kaukauna were required to pay 10 percent of the cost of their health insurance coverage and none of their pension costs. Now, they’ll pay 12.6 percent of the cost of their coverage (still well below rates in much of the private sector) and also contribute 5.8 percent of salary to their pensions. The changes will save the school board an estimated $1.2 million this year, according to board President Todd Arnoldussen.

These savings were only made possible by limits on collective bargaining, York explains. Before Walker’s bill became law, the school district was obligated, by its collective bargaining agreement, to purchase health insurance coverage from WEA Trust, a union-created company. WEA Trust predictably hiked its prices — but, as soon as the school district became free to shop around for cheaper coverage, even WEA Trust dropped what it was charging.

But wait, there’s more: With those savings, the school district plans to hire more teachers!

Limits on collective bargaining will also lead to smaller class sizes, a boon for students. That’s because, in the absence of the work rules in place under the unions, teachers will now pick up an extra class period a day, teaching six instead of five — and will be present at the school for a full 40 hours each week, rather than just 37.5. I’d venture to guess it’s easier for a teacher to teach just 26 students at a time than it is to teach 31, too.

The school district also plans to implement merit pay.

This bright news comes just as the National Education Association admitted, for the first time, that evidence of student learning should be considered in the evaluations of school teachers around the country — and as the union gave an early 2012 presidential election endorsement to President Barack Obama. Oh yeah … and as the union approved a dues increase.

But wait, there’s more: With those savings, the school district plans to hire more teachers!

But isn’t the point to save money? I’m sorry but I am a bit unclear. I thought the budget was being busted by overspending…isn’t the idea to save money and cut spending rather than redirecting it? Shouldn’t that $1.2 million be saved and applied to deficits or to next year’s budget?

The school has one employee for every 10 students and they are hiring more teachers to decrease the classrooms to 26 students. Who are all these other employees?

Rose on July 5, 2011 at 6:47 PM

I attend my church’s school from K-6th grade. It was the BEST elementary school in my home town and there was a waiting list to get in (church members had priority). About 25 kids per class. We had a principal, her secretary, 7 teachers, 1 nurse, 2 custodians and 1 bus driver for a total of 13 adult employees for 175 or so children.

Teachers are only part of the school staff, believe me. And if I had only 25 kids in a class I’d think I died and when to teacher heaven. I’m more likely to have 35-40, sometimes more, and if they’re all there to learn, that’s no problem (like in an honors class). When they’re not, it’s like herding cats, except nobody expects the cats to learn anything. :)

Why is ‘class size’ the golden calf for the progs? At one time American K-12 schools performed very well, and class sizes didn’t seem to be a problem.

slickwillie2001 on July 5, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Yeah, and at one time the entire K-12 class was about thirty students total or less. These days teachers could be seeing that many kids in a single hour.

The long and short of it is that it gets exponentially harder to teach as you get “farther from a group and closer to a crowd” as one teacher put it. It’s harder to keep order and answer questions the more students you’re trying to teach.

Actually, the true Progressives don’t want to see them in school at all. They think that the kids should sit around in a circle under a tree with their teacher as equals and discuss their feelings. Their view of education is more along the lines of “social awareness” than really learning anything concrete. They despise the idea of kids sitting quietly in orderly rows and often attack most facets of American education as being outdated/antiquated and being a holdover from the old Industrial Revolution society.

Fellow Conservatives are too busy attacking teachers to really be concerned with the fact that American families have steadily been disintegrating and that school is the last thing on the list of priorities for many of these kids.

Get rid of the thugs/juvenile delinquents and those who don’t want to be there and who are old enough to work and these public schools will naturally improve. It is not fair to compare those students whose parents bring them up with goals, morals, and expectations and send them off to private schools with the vast majority that are a captive audience brought into this world by parents who themselves have little use for education.

And we look at this as a victory?
Just balancing our budgets?
We are sad.
faraway on July 5, 2011 at 6:40 PM

faraway – that’s correct – it IS a victory. Spending unwisely is immoral – it leaves us with less resources to help those that need it. In fact, re-read this post and you’ll see that the savings is allowing them to hire more teachers. So, kids are going to get more because they are spending wisely and balancing the budget.

Wednesday, school officials put in place new policies they estimate will turn that $400,000 deficit into a $1.5 million surplus. And it’s all because of the very provisions that union leaders predicted would be disastrous.

…

But wait, there’s more: With those savings, the school district plans to hire more teachers!

If Gov. Pawlenty did this in Minnesota when he “took on the unions and won”, he needs to ‘splain this in his ads.

This is how you win people over to these reforms–show results, like more young teachers being hired, smaller class sizes, better education. And who knows, if this school district runs a surplus, they might even lower property taxes!